Lumo overspeed incident at Peterborough (17/04/2022)

[LOL The Irony]

Going back to the theory of accelerating due to a signal changing on you, having experienced the performance of a 331, I can easily see how being distracted for a period as short as just 10 seconds could lead to an overspeed. Even if it wasn't the cause of this incident, it still feels like something that needs looking at.

 

[43066]

Going back to the theory of accelerating due to a signal changing on you, having experienced the performance of a 331, I can easily see how being distracted for a period as short as just 10 seconds could lead to an overspeed. Even if it wasn't the cause of this incident, it still feels like something that needs looking at.

In terms of “looking at” I can’t really see much changing, as this kind of incident is rare and something route knowledge generally mitigates against. I sign several 40mph crossings on 120+mph lines, generally the signal will step up from red to green on approach (depending on the sequence of subsequent signals) and obviously it’s then entirely incumbent on the driver to drive at the correct speed.

 

[Nottingham59]

obviously it’s then entirely incumbent on the driver to drive at the correct speed

... which means that in this respect the signalling is not fail-safe.

The danger of a driver mis-reading the route indication in cases like this makes me wonder why the diverging route off the fast line is not protected by TPWS, to protect against overspeed.

Are situations like unusual/unexpected route indications regularly included in simulators for on-going driver competence assessment and re-certification?

 

[bramling]

... which means that in this respect the signalling is not fail-safe.

For this situation the signalling never claims to be. It has always been the expectation that the driver possesses and correctly applies the relevant route knowledge.

The danger of a driver mis-reading the route indication in cases like this makes me wonder why the diverging route off the fast line is not protected by TPWS, to protect against overspeed.

Again, a scenario TPWS wasn’t conceived to cover. In theory it would be possible to install an overspeed grid somewhere, but there would be an element of challenge to design it in order to be able to be effective against an accelerating train, which is what we believe to be the scenario here.

Continuous ATP with supervision of braking curves is the gold-plated solution, but we’re a very long way away from this network-wide. As stated elsewhere, by coincidence this particular location looks likely to get it fairly soon.

Are situations like unusual/unexpected route indications regularly included in simulators for on-going driver competence assessment and re-certification?

It’s certainly the sort of thing which should be covered as part of the competence management process. Signing a location is normally a declaration of being able to drive over all of the layout, so that certainly includes routes not routinely covered. We’re jumping the gun a bit though, as we don’t know whether this was a missed junction indicator, misremembering the speed limit, lapse of concentration, or whatever.

 

[niggill617@gma]

For this situation the signalling never claims to be. It has always been the expectation that the driver possesses and correctly applies the relevant route knowledge.




Again, a scenario TPWS wasn’t conceived to cover. In theory it would be possible to install an overspeed grid somewhere, but there would be an element of challenge to design it in order to be able to be effective against an accelerating train, which is what we believe to be the scenario here.

Continuous ATP with supervision of braking curves is the gold-plated solution, but we’re a very long way away from this network-wide. As stated elsewhere, by coincidence this particular location looks likely to get it fairly soon.



It’s certainly the sort of thing which should be covered as part of the competence management process. Signing a location is normally a declaration of being able to drive over all of the layout, so that certainly includes routes not routinely covered. We’re jumping the gun a bit though, as we don’t know whether this was a missed junction indicator, misremembering the speed limit, lapse of concentration, or whatever.

RAIB will be trawling the RIS attachment for sure. No wonder the reports take time to produce. Page 10 para 1.3, and page 40 3.2 are food for thought. The Dalwhinnie investigation: overspeed, crossover, etc. The signalling system is not infallible.

 

[ainsworth74]

The RAIB have now published their full report into this incident:

Summary​

At around 10:20 hrs on 17 April 2022, the 08:20 hrs Lumo service from Newcastle to London King’s Cross, passed over three sets of points at Spital Junction at the northern approach to Peterborough station at excessive speed. The maximum permitted speed over the junction is initially 30 mph (48 km/h) reducing to 25 mph (40 km/h). The data recorder from the train indicated that the points had been traversed at a speed of 76 mph (122 km/h).

The speed of the train over the junction resulted in sudden sideways movements of the coaches. This led to some passengers being thrown from their seats and luggage falling from the overhead storage, with some passengers receiving minor injuries. Although the train did not derail, and no damage was caused, post-incident analysis has indicated that the train was close to a speed that would have led to it overturning, and it was likely that some of the wheels of the vehicles lifted off the rails.

RAIB’s investigation found that the overspeeding was caused by the driver of train 1Y80 not reacting appropriately to the signal indication they had received on approach to the junction. This signal indication was a warning that the train was to take a diverging route ahead which had a lower speed limit than the straight-ahead route which they were expecting to take. The driver’s awareness of the signal conditions that could be presented on approach to this junction and their training were not sufficient to overcome this expectation.

RAIB found that Lumo had not assessed and controlled the risk associated with trains being unexpectedly routed on a slower, diverging route at this location and that it had not adequately trained the driver to prepare for this eventuality. Network Rail had also neither assessed nor effectively controlled the risk of overspeeding at locations where there is a long distance between the protecting signal and the junction itself. The investigation also found that half of the passenger injuries were as a result of falling luggage that had been stowed in the overhead luggage racks.

Recommendations​

RAIB has made four recommendations. The first recommendation is for Lumo to review its processes to ensure that it effectively controls the risk of overspeeding at diverging junctions. The second recommendation asks Network Rail to identify junctions where there is a greater potential for overspeeding to occur and to work with operators to share information on the associated risks. The third recommendation asks Network Rail and train operators to consider and implement risk control measures at those junctions identified in the second recommendation. The fourth recommendation is intended to ensure that Lumo minimises the risks from falling luggage on its services.

RAIB has also identified two learning points. These relate to the need for drivers to maintain alertness when approaching junction signals and that train operator emergency plans should specifically include processes to deal with the aftermath of overspeeding incidents.

May 2023 overspeeding incident​

At around 13:00 hrs on 4 May 2023, another overspeeding incident occurred at the same location involving a Grand Central service. As a result, RAIB issued urgent safety advice to the industry and announced its intention to investigate this second incident. Further details can be found at paragraph 195 of this report.

Report 06/2023: Train overspeeding at Spital Junction

Train overspeeding at Spital Junction, Peterborough, 17 April 2022.

www.gov.uk

 

[DarloRich]

"Although the train did not derail, and no damage was caused, post-incident analysis has indicated that the train was close to a speed that would have led to it overturning, and it was likely that some of the wheels of the vehicles lifted off the rails"

That sounds like a very near miss.

 

[miklcct]

Is approach release used at that junction?

 

[ComUtoR]

That sounds like a very near miss.

It's amazing what we each interpret from the report (and indeed many others)

76 in a 30 and there was no derailment and no damage caused. That, to me, highlights how robust and how good our tolerance's can/are. A testament to our safety culture for sure.

 

[Taunton]

One really would have thought that a 25mph turnout from a 100mph main line would have the signal clear to single yellow rather than green, whether for an oddball movement, like this one, or not. I'd like to see the risk assessment that says green rather than yellow is the appropriate aspect.

 

[DanNCL]

From reading the summary of that report this sounds like an incredibly lucky escape. Just 5mph more and the outcome could have been very different...

 

[DarloRich]

It's amazing what we each interpret from the report (and indeed many others)

76 in a 30 and there was no derailment and no damage caused. That, to me, highlights how robust and how good our tolerance's can/are. A testament to our safety culture for sure.

I am not so sure - you might be suggesting science where the real answer is luck! We got a way with it and that isnt a good enough response surely? ( agree on the interpretation point)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The mention of luggage is interesting. Lumo has no proper floor level racks so people will naturally put bigger stuff up.

Surely the 400 seat requirement must now be lifted to allow the fitting of floor level racks in the deadlights? Or will Lumo just make their stupid luggage policy even more stupid?

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm interested to read recommendation 4:

4 The intent of this recommendation is to minimise the risks from falling luggage on Lumo train services. Lumo should assess the risks of high volumes of large and likely heavy luggage stowed in overhead luggage racks which can fall on passengers if trains suffer significant lateral accelerations. This assessment should specifically examine the design of overhead luggage racks, the amount of alternative luggage storage space provided and passenger luggage policies. Lumo should implement any control measures identified as appropriate (paragraph 204).

We saw Lumo try to suggest charging for, or limiting luggage after this incident. I wonder how much this incident fed into that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm interested to read recommendation 4:

4 The intent of this recommendation is to minimise the risks from falling luggage on Lumo train services. Lumo should assess the risks of high volumes of large and likely heavy luggage stowed in overhead luggage racks which can fall on passengers if trains suffer significant lateral accelerations. This assessment should specifically examine the design of overhead luggage racks, the amount of alternative luggage storage space provided and passenger luggage policies. Lumo should implement any control measures identified as appropriate (paragraph 204).

We saw Lumo try to suggest charging for, or limiting luggage after this incident. I wonder how much this incident fed into that.

Try to? They did do it. You're allowed little more than airline hand luggage, with no possibility to pay extra for more.

 

[AlterEgo]

Try to? They did do it. You're allowed little more than airline hand luggage, with no possibility to pay extra for more.

I didn't realise it was an actual policy now! Obviously they haven't mentioned an incident which was 5-10mph away from probably killing people as the origin of the policy, but I don't think it is a coincidence. You're right about the lack of standing racks too. That really ought to be changed, quickly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I didn't realise it was an actual policy now! Obviously they haven't mentioned an incident which was 5-10mph away from probably killing people as the origin of the policy, but I don't think it is a coincidence. You're right about the lack of standing racks too. That really ought to be changed, quickly.

Design of racks is also mentioned. While I am a fan of the large racks on the 80x, they are nearly horizontal with no lip, so it does strike me that stuff might be more likely to fall off than on designs with a small lip or more angled designs. So I think this can be improved without removing capacity for bulky but not too heavy stuff like e.g. sleeping bags. What I'd not like to see is a return to the stupid tiny racks of early 2000s designs like Voyagers and 175s.

 

[ainsworth74]

While I am a fan of the large racks on the 80x, they are nearly horizontal with no lip, so it does strike me that stuff might be more likely to fall off than on designs with a small lip or more angled designs.

I was thinking that a little lip (even a couple of centimetres) would probably help the situation without needing to add any additional slope away from the horizontal. Shouldn't be an impossible mod to make you'd think?

 

[jfollows]

One really would have thought that a 25mph turnout from a 100mph main line would have the signal clear to single yellow rather than green, whether for an oddball movement, like this one, or not. I'd like to see the risk assessment that says green rather than yellow is the appropriate aspect.

Because that's the way signalling works in this country, as I'm sure you're aware. And the report states this repeatedly. No "risk assessment" is needed for normal operation.

 

[greatkingrat]

Because that's the way signalling works in this country, as I'm sure you're aware. And the report states this repeatedly. No "risk assessment" is needed for normal operation.

Paragraph 198 says that Network Rail have changed the signal to display yellow rather than green when a diverging route is set, so it is clearly not a silly idea.

 

[185143]

The mention of luggage is interesting. Lumo has no proper floor level racks so people will naturally put bigger stuff up.

Surely the 400 seat requirement must now be lifted to allow the fitting of floor level racks in the deadlights? Or will Lumo just make their stupid luggage policy even more stupid?

I was on a Lumo train the other day and at least two carriages had a cover over the windowless seats at the ends of the carriage and the seats piled high with luggage.

In another carriage, there was no cover but the seats were being used for the same purpose. I'd hope in due course those seats will be removed and replaced with luggage racks.

 

[LUYMun]

To me, the driver's lack of training on diverging routes has got to be the crucial role in the overspeed, which probably tells that Lumo haven't done their homework well, so this must put some uneasiness on passengers. This reminds me of the Ladbroke Grove collision, in which the lack of training provided by Thames Trains to the driver was one of the key roles in causing the accident. Perhaps Lumo needs to be scrutinised to a higher degree to ensure their training courses are of adequate standards?

 

[66701GBRF]

It's amazing what we each interpret from the report (and indeed many others)

76 in a 30 and there was no derailment and no damage caused. That, to me, highlights how robust and how good our tolerance's can/are. A testament to our safety culture for sure.

It was luck. The report even says it's likely some wheels lifted off the rail.

 

[800001]

It was luck. The report even says it's likely some wheels lifted off the rail.

Likely, but not proven,

 

[lineclear]

To me, the driver's lack of training on diverging routes has got to be the crucial role in the overspeed, which probably tells that Lumo haven't done their homework well, so this must put some uneasiness on passengers. This reminds me of the Ladbroke Grove collision, in which the lack of training provided by Thames Trains to the driver was one of the key roles in causing the accident. Perhaps Lumo needs to be scrutinised to a higher degree to ensure their training courses are of adequate standards?

This also reminds me of Ladbroke Grove. As well as the poor training of a new driver, in both incidents the driver believed the signal was showing a different indication, even though the signal indications were visible for a significant length of time after forming this belief.

 

[Taunton]

Because that's the way signalling works in this country, as I'm sure you're aware.

And thus I'm also aware that, in semaphore days, the distant would never be pulled to clear when the route was set for a 25mph turnout, just because all the subsequent signals happened to be off.

 

[dk1]

And thus I'm also aware that, in semaphore days, the distant would never be pulled to clear when the route was set for a 25mph turnout, just because all the subsequent signals happened to be off.

No that would not have been possible unless provided with splitting distants but then only under specific circumstances.

 

[Dieseldriver]

And thus I'm also aware that, in semaphore days, the distant would never be pulled to clear when the route was set for a 25mph turnout, just because all the subsequent signals happened to be off.

Of course it wouldn’t, and the modern scenario as in this case is the same principle, the Driver was checked down to a red at the junction signal by the previous signals displaying cautionary aspects.

 

[trebor79]

And thus I'm also aware that, in semaphore days, the distant would never be pulled to clear when the route was set for a 25mph turnout, just because all the subsequent signals happened to be off.

Of course it wouldn’t, and the modern scenario as in this case is the same principle, the Driver was checked down to a red at the junction signal by the previous signals displaying cautionary aspects.

Indeed, isn't the issue the junction signal being someway before the junction, and the 80x being very quick to accelerate?

 

[172007]

Trying to work out if a flashing flash (white lights in jct indicator for route) may well be an idea, certainly would be attention grabbing. Perhaps the light intensity pulsate as apposed to flashing as such.